GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. v. MS. REKHA HEMAL

1. The present review petition has been filed by the original petitioners seeking review of order dated 05.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 11338/2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners against an order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘CAT’) dated 15.12.2016 was dismissed with the following observations:-

3. Arguments were heard again in revision petition from both the sides.

4. The petitioners have pleaded that this Court inadvertently did not consider the fact about the requirement of Master's Degree with first class either at Bachelor's or masters Level for grant of Lecturer (Selection Grade) which scale was introduced as per AICTE Regulations. It has been submitted that when the respondent was recruited, AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999 was applicable, which had provided as under:- “Para 8.[3] Lecturer (selection Grade), Scale of Rs. 12000-183000: “A senior lecturer / Lecturer (Senior Scale) who has a Master’s Degree and 5 years experience as senior Lecturer of Lecturer (Senior Scale), and has Consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports will be eligible to be placed as Lecturer (Selection Grade), subject to the recommendation of the Selection Committee.” 4.[1] The respondent is stated to have completed 11 years of service on 20.07.2011 but she did not have requisite Master’s Degree, therefore, according to DPC, she was not eligible for Selection Grade Scale. She does not meet the qualification criteria for grant of revised pay-scale as provided in para 8.[3] quoted hereinabove, as she was not having a Master’s Degree at the relevant time. The review petitioners have also referred to a judgement of the High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.31862/2008 titled M.K. v. P.G. Jairaj & Ors, wherein it was held as under:- “35……………. WA2706/09 & con. cases 46. They opined that reducing the standards to suit some purpose will be a dangerous trend which will destroy the quality of education. Unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or adversely affect the students, it cannot be interfered with." 4.[2] It is further mentioned that the clarification issued by AICTE on 05.03.2010 mentions that for being eligible to Lecture Selection Grade, an M.E./M.Tech. qualification is also required.

AICTE has also clarified the same point vide letter dated 18.10.2012. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in W.P.(C) No. 578/2013, RANI titled Sri Bhabesh Goswami & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. 4.[3] It has also been submitted that this Court has inadvertently overlooked the conditions stipulated in the order dated 29.07.2010, which mentioned that requirements fixed by AICTE/State Government are required to be fulfilled for moving to the higher grade. It is also the stand of the petitioners that the conditions stipulated in order dated 29.07.2010 mentioning about ‘other requirements’ was with reference to Master’s Degree. Moreover, the respondent has also not completed TEQIP sponsored programme. A reference has also been made to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 4026/2003 titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev Lochan Gupta & Ors., whereby the present petitioner was directed strictly to comply with the directions of AICTE. The petitioners have also referred to a decision of the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2706/2009 in W.P.(C) 31862/2018 titled Anandavally MK v. P.G. Jairaj & Ors., wherein the relaxation for promotion to post of Professor without Ph. D. qualification was given by the Government but the same was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. 4.[4] On these grounds, the petitioners have prayed that the review petition may be allowed and the judgement and order dated 05.11.2019 be recalled in so far as it dismisses the petition and directed payment of salary for the entire period to the respondent.

5. Notice was issued. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It has been submitted that the review petitioners never urged the point regarding requirement of Master’s Degree and five years’ experience as set out in AICTE notification dated 30.12.1999 before this Court. The claim of the respondent for promotion was turned down by the petitioners on 07.01.2016 on the ground that her case was premature and the same cannot be processed till AICTE Guidelines 2012 were approved by the Delhi RANI Cabinet. Copy of the order dated 07.01.2016 has been annexed as Annexure CR-5. The said order was challenged by the respondent before CAT in O.A. No. 586/2016 as being discriminatory because vide order dated 05.09.2013, Selection Grade to similarly situated Lecturer was granted. In those cases, the due date of promotion falls after 05.03.2010, so, while granting the said promotions the petitioners applied AICTE Notification dated 05.03.2010 r/w Office Order dated 29.07.2010 and Order dated 08.10.2010, subject to clarification sought from AICTE relating to AICTE notification dated 08.11.2012. 5.[1] It is further submitted by respondent in her counter affidavit that the review petitioners took a different stand before the CAT. The CAT vide judgement dated 15.12.2016 allowed O.A. No. 586/2016 and since the said judgment was not complied with, respondent preferred a Contempt Petition before the CAT. During pendency of the Contempt Petition, the present petitioners passed an order dated 18.08.2017, wherein it was mentioned that as the respondent was not possessing M.Phil. Degree, therefore, the respondent’s case for grant of Selection Grade- I & II was deferred. The review petitioners again changed their stand and submitted that since respondent did not possess Master’s Degree at the relevant time, therefore, she cannot be granted Selection Grade- I & II while passing the order dated 23.11.2017. The review petitioners are changing goal-posts in every other proceeding, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.

6. As per the respondent, clause 1.[3] (ix) of AICTE notification dated 05.03.2010 stipulates that Lecturers with complete service of five years with AGP of Rs.7,000/- shall be eligible to be moved up to the AGP of Rs.8,000/and similarly after three years of teaching with AGP of Rs.8,000/-, the Selection Grade Lecturer shall be eligible to move to AGP of Rs.9,000/- as RANI per Clause 1.3(xii). The candidates were required to complete two AICTE approved refresher programmes of not less than two weeks’ duration and two one week’s duration programme of TEQIP. This notification dated 05.03.2010 was approved by the Delhi Cabinet on 12/14.07.2010, and subsequently an Office Order dated 29.07.2010 was issued. In terms of Clause 12.01 (ix) (xii) and (xvi), the respondent is entitled for grant of Selection Grade-I with AGP of Rs.8,000/- w.e.f. 20.09.2011 and Selection Grade-II with AGP of Rs.9,000/- w.e.f. 20.09.2014. This notification does not mention anywhere that Master’s Degree is required for grant of Selection Grade- I & II by the Lecturers. The respondent had completed two AICTE/State Government programmes of not less than two weeks and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programmes. Similarly, AICTE notification dated 08.11.2012 in Clause 3.[8] stipulates that Lecturer completing three years of teaching experience in the Grade of Rs.7,000/shall be eligible, subject to qualifying conditions and the API based PABAS requirements prescribed by these regulations to move to the higher grade of Rs.8,000/- with the designation of Lecturer (Selection Grade). 6.[1] It is further submitted by the respondent that a corrigendum dated 04.01.2016 was issued by AICTE in respect of Clause 3.[7] and 3.[8] AICTE notification dated 08.11.2012. This notification has specified that those joining the service after 05.03.2010 are required to have completed Ph. D. in addition to the earlier mentioned requirements to move to Lecturer (Selection Grade). Clause 38 of AICTE notification dated 04.01.2016 stipulates that relaxation in API score is applicable for three years from the date of issue of AICTE regulation of 2012, meaning thereby that it shall not be applicable to the Lecturers whose promotion due dates fall till 07.11.2015. The due date for grant of Selection Grade- I and II to the RANI respondent falls prior to 07.11.2015, so the conditions regarding API based requirements for the next higher AGP do not apply to her. The AICTE notification dated 08.11.2012 and 04.01.2016 were approved by Delhi Cabinet on 16.06.2016 and as a consequence thereto an office order dated 29.07.2016 was issued. 6.[2] It is also submitted that the petitioners had never disputed the applicability of Office Order dated 29.07.2010 while considering the claim of the respondent for grant of Selection Grade-I and Selection Grade-II but before the Hon’ble Supreme Court they have taken up the issue regarding applicability of AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999, while considering the claim of respondent for grant of Selection Grade. The petitioners cannot be allowed to set up a new case to reagitate the entire matter again. The petitioners are required to apply AICTE notification dated 05.03.2010 read with Office Order dated 29.07.2010 while considering the claim of respondent as they did in similar circumstances vide order dated 05.09.2013 in respect of other Lecturers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has requested this Court only to re-examine the matter to the limited extent as to whether Clause 8.[3] of AICTE Guidelines dated 30.12.1999 or Clause 12.[1] (ix), (xii) and (xvi) of Office Order dated 29.07.2010 read with Clause 1.[3] (ix) (xii) and (xvi) of AICTE notification dated 05.03.2010 is to be applied while considering the case of the respondent for grant of Selection Grade I & II. The due date for grant of Selection Grade I & II qua the respondent falls after 05.03.2010, so AICTE Notification dated 05.03.2010 read with Office Order dated 29.07.2010 is to be applied, which mentions Master’s Degree is not a pre-requisite for grant of Selection Grade I&II to the respondent. 6.[3] No grounds have been mentioned by the petitioners, on which this Court can review its judgment dated 05.11.2019. There is no mistake or RANI error apparent on the face of law mentioned in the review petition. The review petitioners are trying to reagitate/reargue the entire matter, hence no review is permissible in the eyes of law as the review of the judgment has to be confined to the grounds enumerated in the Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6.[4] The detailed para wise reply is also on the same lines. The respondent at the time of her appointment was possessing Master’s Degree in Sociology and 3 years Diploma in Interior Decoration and Display (1st Division) with Distinction from the Board of Technical Education Delhi. The respondent also did her 2nd Master's Degree in Interior Design / Decoration from Punjab Technical University on 30.09.2012 (1st Batch of Master's Degree). It is pertinent to mention herein that the Punjab Technical University is the First University in India which started offering Master's Degree in Interior Design / Decoration. It has been denied that respondent has not completed TEQIP sponsored programme. The judgments cited by the petitioners are not relevant to the present case.